$10 Million Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Patriots

[Demosthenes]

A "brief summary" of the situation is that this is at most a "customer service complaint" that might result in an apology and some token of good will, such as a free pair of game tickets.


Summary of actual events:

• Guy is at game with his kid.
• NFL officials invite kid onto field.
• Security yells at dad for kid being on the field without credentials.
• The two argue for a while.
• Higher ups come over to diffuse situation.
• Higher ups point to dad and give him a "thumbs up", meaning "it's all good".
• Security guard has some more words with dad.
• Dad has heart attack.

Again, at most, this is a case of "bad customer service" that would lead to a complaint to the Pats organization about the "unprofessional conduct" of a security guard.

It in no way warrants a wrongful death suit.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

A "brief summary" of the situation is that this is at most a "customer service complaint" that might result in an apology and some token of good will, such as a free pair of game tickets.


Summary of actual events:

• Guy is at game with his kid.
• NFL officials invite kid onto field.
• Security yells at dad for kid being on the field without credentials.
• The two argue for a while.
• Higher ups come over to diffuse situation.
• Higher ups point to dad and give him a "thumbs up", meaning "it's all good".
• Security guard has some more words with dad.
• Dad has heart attack.

Again, at most, this is a case of "bad customer service" that would lead to a complaint to the Pats organization about the "unprofessional conduct" of a security guard.

It in no way warrants a wrongful death suit.

That makes sense, and I think there is a misunderstanding about what needs to be proven in order for the plaintiff to win.

The plaintiff can argue "but not for the confrontation, the husband/father would still be alive." And they may be correct, but that does not necessarily mean the other side is liable. You would have to prove that the security guard knew, or should have known, that this man was at serious risk to have a heart attack due to his actions (and his actions would need to be negligent by legal definition.)

That is, the security guard can be negligent but not be liable for any damages if he could not have reasonably forseen the consequences. Likewise, even if he had foreseen the consequences, he would not be liable if he did not act in a legally negligent way (words and arguments are rarely construed as negligence.)

 

[belichick010405]

People confront people all the time. The guy didn't die simply and purely from a confrontation with a security guard. He died because that confrontation was mixed with an already weak heart. He wasn't well. And anybody that thinks that this lawsuit, almost three years later, isn't coming from greed is kidding themselves. Yes, I feel bad for her and the kid. I did at the time too. No kid should have to grow up without a dad. But to sue the team and the security is ridiculous. It smacks of greed all the way around.

No offense - but you don't know that.

 

[belichick010405]

A "brief summary" of the situation is that this is at most a "customer service complaint" that might result in an apology and some token of good will, such as a free pair of game tickets.


Summary of actual events:

• Guy is at game with his kid.
• NFL officials invite kid onto field.
• Security yells at dad for kid being on the field without credentials.
• The two argue for a while.
• Higher ups come over to diffuse situation.
• Higher ups point to dad and give him a "thumbs up", meaning "it's all good".
• Security guard has some more words with dad.
• Dad has heart attack.

Again, at most, this is a case of "bad customer service" that would lead to a complaint to the Pats organization about the "unprofessional conduct" of a security guard.

It in no way warrants a wrongful death suit.

And - you don't know that either Mr. Troll.

 

[Demosthenes]

And - you don't know that either Mr. Troll.

Whatever you say Sunshine.

 

[belichick010405]

Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the complaint? Maybe just a paragraph of the most important assertions? Thanks.

Ice - in my view, the most compelling claim that has been made in this complaint can be found in 92 c and d which is on page 12.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Ice - in my view, the most compelling claim that has been made in this complaint can be found in 92 c and d which is on page 12.

Do you have a link to the complaint?

 

[Termigator]

A loser-pays system would get rid of all this nonsense. A great many lawyers would have to look for honest work though.

Unfortunately, a loser pays system whould have to be voted on by ... wait for it... lawyers. :biggrin2:

Due to the ever increasing US sedentary lifestile, 40 is the new 50 when it comes to MIs (Miocardial Infarctions, aka heart attacks). Lifestyle and genetics play a major role in who is at risk and if this individual smoked or had a history of heart problems in his family then he was at a much greater risk.

This is a nuisanse case with the lawyer hoping the team settles out of court. Typical to go after the biggest bag of shells first.

 

[belichick010405]

Do you have a link to the complaint?

Kimberly Chartier of Chicopee sues New England Patriots, NFL, in wake of husband's fatal heart attack in 2010 at Foxborough | masslive.com

 

[belichick010405]

Ice - you can read the complaint regarding what happened at the end of the story.

 

[IllegalContact]

I just remember walking up Rt1N to my car when I walked by a guy on the ground who was gray and they were no longer trying to resuscitate him.....he was gone.....I think they were waiting for more help to lift him into the ambulance as he was massive

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I see that Florio, who is an attorney, provides the terminology I was looking for: proximate causation.

If the allegations are accurate, the security guard apparently used excessive efforts to deal with a minimal threat to the playing surface. However, the problem will be establishing a link between the guard’s behavior and Chartier’s heart attack. The legal term is “proximate causation”; Mrs. Chartier’s lawyers will have to prove that her husband’s death as a result of an angry interaction falls within the reasonable range of risks created by the guard’s alleged behavior.

Patriots sued for incident resulting in death of fan | ProFootballTalk

 

[belichick010405]

I see that Florio, who is an attorney, provides the terminology I was looking for: proximate causation.

If the allegations are accurate, the security guard apparently used excessive efforts to deal with a minimal threat to the playing surface. However, the problem will be establishing a link between the guard’s behavior and Chartier’s heart attack. The legal term is “proximate causation”; Mrs. Chartier’s lawyers will have to prove that her husband’s death as a result of an angry interaction falls within the reasonable range of risks created by the guard’s alleged behavior.

Patriots sued for incident resulting in death of fan | ProFootballTalk

That would be correct Ice. If this security guard went above and beyond annoying and harassing the deceased, then the stress that was caused by the security guard could prove and likely would, based on the individuals' medical history, prove causation, including if his medical history demonstrates that the undue stress would have exacerbated either his current medical condition or triggered an irreversible medical outcome.

 

[chasa]

short of being there I cant say either way,

What I can say is this situation at no point would have resulted in me throwing a hissy fit like the boys father apparently did.

Simply tell the security guard the situation, then let him know if the game officials were out of line then he would be happy to have his son return to his seat, end of discussion.

Seems like a case of someone getting overly upset for no reason, and having a life time of poor health management coming up and biting them on the ass.

 

[kennyb]

I think that's right. I don't see how security doing their job is negligence even if it did cause him to have a heart attack. How were they supposed to know? And what are they supposed to do? If people with known heart attack risks are strolling on the field, should security just leave them be, lest they have a heart attack?

Should security ask them for a full doctor's report before asking them why they are on the field? Does that make sense?

Sad case, but I don't think they are liable for anything.

 

[Demosthenes]

Ice - in my view, the most compelling claim that has been made in this complaint can be found in 92 c and d which is on page 12.

From the complaint.

c. he confronted Jeff and Tedy, rather than the NFL game officials who had violated stadium policy and invited Tedy to go onto the field;

d. he continued to interact with Jeff when there was no need to do so, even after Tedy had been removed from the field and even though it was apparent that such continued interactions was causing Jeff to become increasingly agitated

Oh no, mean security guy yelled at dad instead of the officials, even after the kid was off the field. And horror of horrors, he continued even when Dad was becoming AGITATED>

SHOCKING.


That's kind of what is known as an ARGUMENT. Like I said, it was a customer service complaint AT MOST.

 

[Ian]

I will say I specifically remember the story and the witness who saw the argument said the security guy was extremely nasty to the guy and that the son was barely on the field.

I'll have to dig up the link, but it definitely sounds like it could have been handled better. Either way a little boy had what should have been a fun day with his dad end tragically, and no lawsuit is going to fix that regardless of the outcome.

 

[belichick010405]

Proximate cause "is a cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, produces the death, and without which the death would not have occurred." Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 379 Mass. 810, 825 (1980),

 

[belichick010405]

I think that's right. I don't see how security doing their job is negligence even if it did cause him to have a heart attack. How were they supposed to know? And what are they supposed to do? If people with known heart attack risks are strolling on the field, should security just leave them be, lest they have a heart attack?

Should security ask them for a full doctor's report before asking them why they are on the field? Does that make sense?

Sad case, but I don't think they are liable for anything.

Kenny - that is the problem, the security guard, instead of doing his job, did two things wrong.

(1) Harassed and annoyed someone to the point that caused his death. (2) Failed to follow standard operating procedure to determine whether or not there was an ongoing security violation when the NFL officials brought that child onto the field.

And then he went above and beyond by going back to the father and continued his annoying and harassing behavior.

 

[Demosthenes]

That would be correct Ice. If this security guard went above and beyond annoying and harassing the deceased, then the stress that was caused by the security guard could prove and likely would, based on the individuals' medical history, prove causation, including if his medical history demonstrates that the undue stress would have exacerbated either his current medical condition or triggered an irreversible medical outcome.

You are ignoring the standard to be used.

Let's stipulate for sake of argument that it could conclusively be proven that the argument caused the heart attack.

There's no way that the security guard would have or could have known about the guy's heart condition.

Just because the security guard might of been an ass, doesn't mean that he's responsible for the guy's death. The question is whether or not his death was reasonably forseeable.